Phillips granted complainant status against two officers who conducted an unauthorized surveillance
By Lethbridge Herald on February 2, 2021.
Lethbridge West MLA Shannon Phillips speaks with reporters at her constituency office last year when she launched LERB appeal. Herald photo by Ian Martens @Tim Kalinowski
Lethbridge Herald
tkalinowski@lethbridgeherald.com
Lethbridge-West MLA Shannon Phillips has been granted complainant status in a case against two Lethbridge Police Service officers who undertook an unauthorized surveillance against her when she was Minister of the Environment under the former NDP government.
The decision was posted on the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB) website this week following Phillips’ hearing on Jan. 22. Phillips had appealed the disciplinary decision on the basis she was not included in the original hearing against the officers despite being the source of the complaint investigation against the officers.
“When you read the decision you see that the arguments that were made by the Lethbridge Police Service legal team were completely dismissed by the Law Enforcement Review Board,” stated Phillips in an interview with The Herald on Tuesday morning. “You will recall I had publicly asked the Chief (Mehdizadeh) not to fight this appeal, and to allow it to go forward. He declined, and instead chose to spend a bunch of money pushing back on the idea this bad decision that was made to keep these two officers employed by the people of Lethbridge should be appealed and revisited.”
“Now the full appeal of that bad decision will go before a public hearing,” added Phillips, “which will again be expensive for the Lethbridge Police Service, and potentially very embarrassing.”
According to the LERB report the Chief of the Calgary Police Service and LPS had determined, incorrectly, at the time the Phillips complaint was not directly tied to the investigation of the officers, who used the police database to search a licence plate of one of the people Phillips was meeting with when she was surveilled by the two officers. The argument was since the officer hadn’t looked up information about Phillips directly she was not impacted directly by the discreditable conduct of the officer, and therefore she should not be viewed as a complainant in the case.
“Clearly these were part and parcel of the surveillance allegation in the appellant’s complaint,” the LERB decision reads in part. “This alone, in our view, is enough to bring the appellant within the definition of “complainant” for the purposes of sections 42.1 and 48 of the (Police) Act, when one considers the spirit and intent of the legislation. This extends to respondent Carrier’s role as an accessory and failing to report the misconduct up the chain of command.
“In short, the board agrees with the presiding officer’s statement that the actions were ‘part and parcel’ of one continuous series of actions. Together, in our view, they constituted the ‘surveillance’ of the appellant and associates who attended the diner meeting.
This conclusion now grants Phillips the right to appeal the disciplinary decision.
“There was a serious error made in not informing me there was an entire subsequent investigation made after 2018 occurring to which I was a party, and about which I had absolutely no knowledge. There was an entire investigation concerning my safety in my own community that was undertaken subsequent to my initial complaint that I had no idea that was happening. That is a tremendous abuse of the public trust.”
Phillips said she now plans to go forward with a full public hearing on these matters, and will be seeking a different disciplinary decision for these two officers at the end of the process.
“Bad cops should be held accountable for their behaviour; full stop,” she stated. “The position my counsel has taken is these two officers should be dismissed, and there were errors made in terms of the disciplinary decision.”
The Lethbridge Police Service released a statement regarding the LERB decision after The Herald broke the news in the community.
“The Lethbridge Police Service respects the decision of the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB) in regards to Ms. Phillips’ appeal, (it) acknowledges her right to appeal the earlier decision, and fully appreciates the importance of the process,” the statement reads. “While Lethbridge Police intends to provide the LERB with any assistance it may require, no further comment will be provided until that Board releases its findings on the appeal.”
The Herald also sought comment from the Lethbridge Police Association on this matter. LPA president Jay McMillan agreed Phillips has the right to a process, but believed the appeal would ultimately find the sanctions already imposed on the two officers were appropriate to the circumstances.
“I am not terribly surprised that she was granted status to appeal the disciplinary decision,” McMillan said in an emailed statement. “I think that Ms. Phillips, like everyone else, deserves access to a process that is not only sound but also transparent. The LERB decision granting her a right to appeal, while justified, does not suggest that the outcome of the disciplinary process was insufficient or unreasonable.
“The LERB commented on the fact that the presiding officer considered the entirety of the misconduct and its context in rendering what is considered a reasonable decision. So we will respect and participate in the appeal process as is needed while trusting that determining factors will be factual and not merely political appetite.”
In a July 9 hearing LPS officers Jason Carrier and Keon Woronuk admitted to using their positions as sworn officers of the law for personal and political reasons to try to overhear a private meeting between Phillips and conservation stakeholders at Chef Stella Diner in Lethbridge. The officers, both off-road enthusiasts, thought Phillips was discussing potential changes within the Castle area where off-road vehicles would have been restricted under a previous NDP government proposal, and acted to ascertain the content of the conversation by launching an unauthorized surveillance operation using police resources. (Phillips was actually discussing the potential release of bison into Banff National Park at the time when the unauthorized surveillance took place).
Woronuk later anonymously posted photos of the meeting on Facebook. Phillips launched a formal complaint with the Calgary Police Service when she became aware of the photos, and a subsequent police investigation led to the two officers. The CPS transferred the matter to the Medicine Hat Police Service for further evaluation which resulted in Police Act charges being laid. A disciplinary hearing was held on the matters in Lethbridge which resulted in both officers being temporarily demoted for discreditable conduct.
Phillips was never directly informed of these proceedings and only learned about the actions of these officers and the results of the hearing when the first media reports regarding the incident surfaced in mid-July.
To read the complete LERB decision visit https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/ablerb/doc/2021/2021ablerb3/2021ablerb3.html
Follow @TimKalHerald on Twitter
25-24
Good!
A procedural error led to a successful Appeal. Phillips now may elect to proceed or abandon this process. Will politics and ego or good sense govern this decision. The last comment in the article regarding DEMANDING a special prosecutor and public inquiry causes me to suspect the former will prevail.
JustObserving
Your opinion would be different if you were stalked, had policemen doing un-authorized surveilling and harassing you, and putting photos of you on Facebook. You too would seek justice.
Methinks that your hidden agenda is to politicize this horrid story.
Kai, firstly you know nothing of my experiences [ which is none of your business ] nor of my “agenda ” [ hint: I have no agenda ]. I merely pointed out the facts…the granting of this Appeal was not an adjudication on the merits, it was an assessment of procedure found to be lacking, thus the ” return” to square one.
Secondly, I’m curious what you perceive as “justice”. Penalties were levied as against these officers and they are not without consequence. I suspect you wish them fired, banned from ever holding such a position again. Would it be sufficient if they were reduced to being on welfare or would you seek to deny this as well? Would you like them buggy-whipped in the public square- all based on “justice” ? In this case the punishment exacted for discreditable conduct was with the bounds of that prescribed and, in my view ,more than sufficient.
Lastly, if you read my comments and understood them you would see I did not seek to politicized anything…indeed I cautioned against such activity.
I hope Ms. Phillips gets good counsel as to her next course of action.
Disrespecful use of “You” above. You… You…You…
Civility please.
“The rule of law is not a law of rules and it is certainly not a law of rulers. And it’s also not law and order,” he says. “It’s a value system we believe in.”
If this officer is willing to break procedure this much for a personal reason I for one am concerned what else he is capable of doing. Police officers are held to a higher standard for a good reason. Would you be concerned having your life in his hands if he makes decisions like this? The other officers decision to look the other way is concerning as well.
JustObserving or more aptly Justice Observing/surveilling. When members of the police service use the most powerful tactic at their disposal, it is the public that demands justice.
These two should have been fired and prosecuted. Their actions were aimed at using surveillance to intimate a provincial minister, so get real and stop the victim blaming.
Perhaps the public needs to push this a step farther so that we can expose some of the far right elements that are radicalizing from within our justice system.
gs172: No, I would not be concerned. Police are called upon to make judgement calls every day. If their judgement is wrong in review they are held to account, as they were here. Of course, iff you are flawless and have never ever erred, you may well sit in judgement, otherwise, perhaps you should , as Adamb put it ” get real”.
Adamb: You seem to be of the mindset that confuses “justice” with “revenge”. In civilized society the two are distinct concepts. You apparently prefer to engage in unsubstantiated dog whistles such as ” victim blaming” , ” far right elements ” and “radicalizing” . Perhaps , before you go to bed tonight, you should check under the bed…there may be boogie men hiding there…of course, if you find one, don’t call on the “radicalized police” to help you.
I was the victim of police harassment some 30 years ago. I was in my late teens and got into an accident, no injuries just property damage. A stupid accident i admit. We called police and an officer showed up who had an attitude and proceeded to throw the kitchen sink at me. I went to court and defended myself and got the “as the judge called them” ridiculous charges thrown out while the judge gave the officer a dressing down. Over? Hardly. Then came the worst year of my life. Pulled over multiple times a month, car contents emptied on the side of the road. Did they find anything? Hell no! He even called my mothers insurance company. It only came to an end when they had the misfortune of pulling me over when my father was in the car. He worked in federal law enforcement. We had a meeting with the chief of police and presto i haven’t had one bad encounter with police since. Respect the police? Absolutely. Trust them? Thats a very gray area, at least to me. And thats why i find it so offensive when they misuse that trust.
Taxpayer paid MLA suing the very people she works for. I hope the people who voted for her are smart enough to figure out they are being sued by the person they voted for. Brilliant.
My IQ just started dropping reading your comment. You literally can’t make this stuff up.
It’s more like those two officers misused publically funded and entrusted resources to intimidate the public’s elected representative.
It was settled but that wasn’t good enough for this MLA. It will eventually come to an action somewhere down the line as termination is the only thing that the cancel culture and yourself will settle for. Next.
it was not settled – it was a classic whitewashing.
So what is your preferred outcome. Demotion and loss of pay isn’t enough. Somebody thinks they are more important than they are. There are some issues with this MLA’s comments and “facts” over Bighorn. Should she be sanctioned, demoted, lose some pay?
Claim: RCMP recommended cancelling public Bighorn sessions over threats.
Fact: RCMP did NOT provide any official advice regarding Bighorn public consultations.
Claim: RCMP has two investigations into Bighorn
Fact: RCMP have no ongoing investigations into Bighorn relating to the consultations.
Claim: Met with the Mayor of Rocky Mountain House about Bighorn.
Fact: exchanged pleasantries white at ANOTHER EVENT.
Someone appears to be having problems with details.
exactly – the “penalties” are not enough. the tap on the butt here does not do near enough to dissuade abuse of power, abuse of public trust, breach of privacy, harassment. you may not like phillips, the ndp, conservation or whatever, but do you really feel the actions are not worthy of serious retribution in free society? LPS officers Jason Carrier and Keon Woronuk should not be members of our force any longer; they should not be members of any cdn policing agency; however, i am sure there are a good number of american outfits that would happily employ them.
Far more information has come to light since the earlier reports. This matter needs to be aired.